On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Trond Myklebust
> <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Trond Myklebust
>> <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Ensure that we deal correctly with the case where the server sends us a
>>> newer instance of the same delegation. If the stateids match, but the
>>> sequence numbers differ, then treat the new delegation as if it were
>>> an atomic upgrade.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfs/delegation.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/delegation.c b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> index 7f3f60641344..02b5b2a6d557 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> @@ -301,6 +301,19 @@ nfs_inode_detach_delegation(struct inode *inode)
>>> return nfs_detach_delegation(nfsi, delegation, server);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void
>>> +nfs_update_inplace_delegation(struct nfs_inode *nfsi,
>>> + struct nfs_delegation *delegation,
>>> + struct nfs_delegation *update)
>>> +{
>>> + if (nfs4_stateid_is_newer(&update->stateid, &delegation->stateid))
>>
>> ...and the above comparison should be reversed.
>
> do you mean: if(!nfs4_stateid_is_newer())
>
> but if we received a delegation stateid with sequence number lower
> than what we have, shouldn't that be some kind of an error?
See the v3 patch. Yes, it would be a bug if the server sent us
something with a lower number, so we ignore that and don't update the
delegation. Ditto if it sends us something with the same sequence
number.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
